mr. Bad wrote:My bad, Dwain. Sorry to mislead you. I should have said union members.(ie voters)http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/ap ... aiver.html I know the waivers are short term, but that's all that is needed during an election. Add the numbers....1.7 million union members vs. less than 150 thousand other private sector employees received waivers. Plus a good measure of folks in private sector employees came from Ms. Pelosi's neighborhood.

I said I'd move on...but I enjoy the challenge...(that's a compliment)

Hey Mr. Bad,

Thanks for the compliment. I also appreciate someone who is able to discuss issues rather than simply spout rhetoric and ideology (plenty of examples abound).

So, because of that, I spent a fair amount of time reviewing the information on the HHS site that you posted the link for.

Now, I will be the first to admit that there is much about the finer points of economics and business that is over my head. Same deal with legislation. So, if I have missed or misconstrued your point, my apologies in advance. If that is indeed the case, please take a moment to get me back on course.

But as best as I’m able to understand, the waiver to which you refer has to do with the annual dollar amount limits imposed by insurers on individual policies. For example, perhaps my union provided policy has a cap of $250,000 a year (in reality, I have no idea). If I were to suffer a disastrous illness that required lots of hospitalization, therapy and medication, they’d cut me off at $250,000, at which point I’d be on my own and on the fast lane to bankruptcy.

As I understand it, the Affordable Care Act eliminates those caps and the waivers you mention are from companies and unions that want to be excused from that cap for “X” number of months.

Now, I can certainly see why the Union bosses would want a waiver from that requirement (cheaper insurance costs, naturally), but I fail to see why any union member (i.e., voter) would advocate for such an exclusion. I personally certainly wouldn’t be motivated to support such a thing nor would I have viewed the Obama administration or the ACA favorably if such a waiver had been granted to my union. That’d be voting against my own self-interests. Although there are legions of working-class conservatives who do such a thing, it’s not my style.

In the spirit of full disclosure, my local (IATSE #44) did not seek a waiver, although Local #1 in NY did. Interestingly, most of the union waiver requests came from New York.

Also, not sure where you're getting your info about "Pelosi's neighborhood." Her 8th district of California is pretty much just the city of San Francisco. Didn't see any waiver requests that came from there. And I've downloaded and scanned each of the available lists. Might have missed a few, but certainly nothing there of enough magnitude to lend any credence to your theory.

Got anything else?

Or can we all team up and demand a single-payer system and be done with it?

Sorry Dwain, I had to stop & scrape the flaming bag of poo off my shoes. PBO has not signed as many EO's as some have reported but he has been busy signing his " fair share" as they like to say. Now he wants more control over the Internet, that could explain his lies about the video. We simply cannot have free speech if it will offend Muslims. I don't have time to go into the individual mandate and how that will impact our privacy rights, some of us have to work to pay for all the freebies. PBO has also run up more than his "fair share" of debt. Economic slavery is where many are now, waiting for those checks to come in. What happens when the well runs dry? You can't keep printing funny money forever. I suspect Fast & Furious was going to be used like the video, as an excuse to implement gun control like they have in Chicago. It seems to be working so well up there!

So, Spin... it seems like you're walking back your "death of freedom and democracy" rant. Thought so. If there was any flaming poo on your shoes it was your own. Given all the BS hysteria posted on these pages, I don't think anyone's 1st amendment rights are in danger any time soon.

Nice pivot, by the way. Did you used to play basketball?

And if you're so danged concerned about the US budget and deficit, where the heck were you when Bush's wars and tax cuts were running it up?

That's what ticks me off about you fair-weather-conservatives. Ideological consistency just ain't your bag.

At the top of the list would have to be Obamacare. You can't deny that one.You have always had the freedom to see a doctor and get medical treatment. The only difference now is that you are required by law to have your own health insurance or else the IRS will fine you.

On personal freedoms at this time, just the choice on what HC policy that I choose. But on the business level, there are now the czars that through the federal bailout programs that can take over a business without that business even having taken any federal funds. If they choose to tell you how to run the business, you have no choice. What is of more concern is the personal and medical information in a shared data base between government agencies. That will now be available to them without a court order via the health care law. The other concern is the home owner rights that get taken away under the cap and trade law if passed. The financial reform package before Congress now gives the right to your personal financial records, also without court order. So at the moment, your health and personal information with more to come this year.For those who don't understand how that works, freedom is choice, mandatory is not choice.

justsayn.. wrote:At the top of the list would have to be Obamacare. You can't deny that one.You have always had the freedom to see a doctor and get medical treatment. The only difference now is that you are required by law to have your own health insurance or else the IRS will fine you.

On personal freedoms at this time, just the choice on what HC policy that I choose. But on the business level, there are now the czars that through the federal bailout programs that can take over a business without that business even having taken any federal funds. If they choose to tell you how to run the business, you have no choice. What is of more concern is the personal and medical information in a shared data base between government agencies. That will now be available to them without a court order via the health care law. The other concern is the home owner rights that get taken away under the cap and trade law if passed. The financial reform package before Congress now gives the right to your personal financial records, also without court order. So at the moment, your health and personal information with more to come this year.For those who don't understand how that works, freedom is choice, mandatory is not choice.

Oh brother... methinks you are confusing "freedom" with "anarchy." Me also thinks that several of your claims are imaginary. For instance, how in the world does a carbon cap and trade policy (which used to be McCain's idea) restrict homeowner's rights? You also don't have the "freedom" to pour toxins into a stream. That's known as a regulation, which is a protection. In the case of my example, it protects our common public resource... courtesy of Richard Nixon.

And name ONE business that's been taken over by a "czar." (Bush had far more "czars" by the way, but who's counting.) Take your time. I'll be around.

As for healthcare reform you seem to be advocating for freeloaders (those folks that use the emergency room on the tax-payer's dime) when you complain about being required to have health insurance.

You have to have car insurance to drive. Is that a loss of freedom?

You can still choose your own healthcare policy. The ACA actually gives you more choices. (The marketplace, once it's fully implemented.)

And your claim of government access to your medical records is more hysteria. (Complete and utter BS.) But there are folks who are looking out for you: the ACLU.

Providers and public health advocates may demand unfettered access to individual medical records that technology now makes possible. However, well-established law and policy at both the state and the federal level have recognized the importance of allowing patients the right to control access to their private medical information.

While Justsayin is mired in her imaginary world, for anybody with an open (working) mind and wants to know the truth, check out this document from the American Nurses Association: Facts to Help Dispel House Health Care Reform Bill Myths